[Sohcahtoa82]

To the tech crowd that visits HN, it's obvious what Incognito did and didn't do.

But imagine your non-technical family members. You know, the type that calls you up for tech support on a regular basis because "you know computers". Someone tells them "Hey, you should be using Incognito when doing adult activities" and then gets caught browsing adult sites on a work computer because they thought Incognito would make it invisible.

This lawsuit isn't for you and me, it's for them.

The question is, since WE know what it did, is it ethical (or even legal) for us to join the class action?

Personally, even if it was legal, and even if someone convinced me it wasn't unethical, I wouldn't do it. I don't want to risk Google being like "You joined a lawsuit against us, so we don't want to do business with you. Say goodbye to your entire Google account. This locks you out of your phone? Too damn bad."

[bee_rider]

It is pretty annoying that some folks here seem to be trying to make it into a tech competency issue or something.

I understand how it works, everybody on this site does, as you note it is obvious to anybody who knows how the internet works. Zero points for meeting the minimum standard.

But, the name is “Incognito mode.” The icon is a little spy. If somebody doesn’t understand how this is misleading to non-technical people, they might have computer literacy, but they desperately lack human literacy.

[zamadatix]

Incognito mode explicitly explains, in a very concise summary, what using the mode implies and doesn't imply every single time the user opens it.

[Dalewyn]

Your first error is assuming people read program messages.

[zamadatix]

If people finding small icons and text in menus to come to incorrect conclusions about what that means is a fine and reasonable thing to expect but noting the page sized display that loads every time they click said content is a foolish error then sure, I've probably got a whole truckload of errors on the topic.

[Dalewyn]

>noting the page sized display that loads every time they click said content

I kindly direct you to alarm fatigue[1], banner blindness[2], and inattentional blindness[3].

The TL;DR is that the more often and worthless a piece of information is presented, the more likely people are going to ignore it either deliberately or habitually.

The flavor text for Incognito Mode pops up every single time an Incognito window is opened and it is practically inconsequential, thus it is worthless information. People will not read it, and you should not assume people will.

It is the fault of the Chrome(ium) designers for presenting information in a way people will ignore; we've known this ever since the first guy who would insta-close every single error message while the tech support agent on the phone with him is desperately begging him to read out WTF the error says.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

[zamadatix]

> alarm fatigue[1], banner blindness[2], and inattentional blindness[3].

These things are precisely what I was thinking about, though from the opposite end. I.e. One can't on hand argue it's reasonable to sue until the browser provides even more warning overload about how to every word in the interface should be legally interpreted to insure nobody can ever come to any other conclusion about what it might mean and then on the other hand say the current lightweight presentation of such information on this feature is too much information overload to be helpful. If it were something like a 100 page EULA or something I could see how Chromium was acting with malicious intent to make people not understand but we're talking about 3 short sentences and 6 couple word bullet points.

> The flavor text for Incognito Mode pops up every single time an Incognito window is opened and it is practically inconsequential, thus it is worthless information.

This misses the point made, almost to the point of malice. The expectation isn't that the user will read the message on the 87th launch and come to an epiphany from the added value of displaying it every time - it's that, regardless of when a particular person first opened incognito on that computer to see what happens, that message will always appear for them regardless if it has been displayed before. I.e. the value for each individual is in the first time launch, but the product guarantees every individual is always getting a first time launch, even on a shared profile.

> It is the fault of the Chrome(ium) designers for presenting information in a way people will ignore

I suppose this is where it leaves the initial discussion about this being an issue of tech literacy and enters the realm of pure opinion on what one should be able to blame others for. I could similarly argue it's the bank's/credit card companies' fault that the number in my account kept going up every time I spent money, as it wasn't my responsibility to notice the number sign in front, the overdraft messages were information fatigue, etc. Since that's a matter of opinion it's neither "right" nor "wrong"... but the judge would probably have a solid laugh if I tried to sued for compensation about it.

When filing a lawsuit the question isn't the UX question "is there any way one of billions of users could misinterpret this" (which is still usually fine to leave n>0 anyways) it's "does this party hold a reasonable amount of responsibility for the damages claimed" not just "can anyone have ever misinterpreted the meaning".

[kevin_thibedeau]

Tesla has been selling a "Full Self Driving" package for a decade, never delivered on their promises, and still faces zero consequences. This has mislead the gullible, some of whom are an active threat to public safety because of Tesla's marketing pap.

[janalsncm]

There’s a lawsuit about that one too: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-12-08/tesla-laws...

[pptr]

The incognito icon seems like a great analogy to me.

A person that hides the face with glasses and hat can still be tracked via CCTV, etc., but the data can't easily be associated to the public persona.

[bee_rider]

No, it doesn’t fit anybody’s real life intuition, because there isn’t an industry of comparing notes about the people we see (with or without disguises). If the analogy requires us to imagine a pervasive surveillance system that tracks you from the moment you leave your door, it isn’t in the intuitive experience of normal people.

[bengoodger]

Incognito clearly states how it works every time you start it, including what it doesn't protect against.

If we're saying that developers can't clearly and obviously state how things work, and are instead bound by however people think they work based on not reading anything at all, we're in a lot of trouble.

Though... can we at least then get rid of every intrusive TOS screen and cookie banner in existence? Because people click past all of those too without reading them.

[Manuel_D]

From the incognito mode landing page:

> Your activity might still be visible to:

> Your employer or school

If they want to blame someone for being caught watching adult content at work, blame the person who told them "Hey, you should be using Incognito when doing adult activities"

[_imnothere]

> Say goodbye to your entire Google account. This locks you out of your phone? Too damn bad.

Another lawsuit for them then.

[31337Logic]

You make it sound like being free of Google is a bad thing. :-/

[tourmalinetaco]

Having your data unexpectedly lost to you (yet still being funneled into their AI) is never a good feeling.